brainstorm-with-file
Interactive brainstorming with documented thought evolution, multi-perspective analysis, and iterative refinement. Serial execution with no agent delegation.
37
36%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.codex/skills/brainstorm-with-file/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description provides a general sense of the skill's domain (brainstorming and ideation) but lacks concrete actions, natural trigger terms, and explicit guidance on when Claude should select it. The phrase 'serial execution with no agent delegation' reads as an internal implementation note rather than useful selection criteria. Overall, the description would struggle to differentiate itself in a large skill library.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms like 'brainstorm', 'generate ideas', 'explore options', 'think through', 'pros and cons', 'ideation'.
Replace abstract phrases like 'documented thought evolution' and 'multi-perspective analysis' with concrete actions, e.g., 'Generates and evaluates ideas from multiple angles, documents reasoning progression, and refines solutions through iterative feedback.'
Remove or relocate the implementation detail 'Serial execution with no agent delegation' as it doesn't help Claude decide when to use this skill and wastes description space.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names some actions like 'brainstorming', 'multi-perspective analysis', and 'iterative refinement', but these are somewhat abstract and not concrete enough to clearly convey what the skill actually does (e.g., what outputs does it produce? what format?). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does at a high level but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' should cap completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also weak, so this scores a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'brainstorming' which is a natural user term, but other phrases like 'documented thought evolution', 'multi-perspective analysis', and 'serial execution with no agent delegation' are more technical/internal jargon than terms users would naturally say. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Brainstorming' and 'iterative refinement' could overlap with many creative or ideation-related skills. The mention of 'serial execution with no agent delegation' adds some distinctiveness as an implementation detail, but doesn't clearly carve out a unique niche from a user's perspective. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
39%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill has excellent workflow clarity with well-defined phases, validation checkpoints, and error recovery, but is severely undermined by extreme verbosity and lack of content decomposition. At 600+ lines in a single file, it violates token efficiency principles by explaining concepts Claude already knows (what brainstorming perspectives are, how to merge ideas) and inlining massive implementation details that should be in separate bundle files. The pseudocode, while structurally informative, is not truly executable.
Suggestions
Reduce the SKILL.md to a concise overview (~100-150 lines) covering the core workflow, key rules (Record-Before-Continue, Terminal Gate), and output structure, then move implementation details (Phase 0-4 code blocks), reference tables (dimensions, perspectives, modes), and templates into separate bundle files like IMPLEMENTATION.md, REFERENCE.md, and TEMPLATES.md.
Remove explanatory content Claude already knows: what brainstorming is, what perspectives mean, why documentation matters, 'Best Practices' advice like 'Clear Topic Definition' and 'Iterate Thoughtfully'.
Either make the code examples truly executable with defined helper functions, or replace pseudocode blocks with concise behavioral specifications (e.g., 'Write perspectives/{name}.json with fields: ideas[], key_findings[], challenged_assumptions[]').
Consolidate the redundant reference tables (Brainstorm Dimensions, Perspectives, Modes, Collaboration Patterns appear multiple times in different forms) into a single reference section in a separate file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~600+ lines. Extensively explains brainstorming concepts, perspective definitions, collaboration patterns, and workflow mechanics that Claude already understands. Massive amounts of pseudocode, JSON schemas, and tables that could be dramatically condensed. The 'When to Use' section, 'Best Practices' section, and dimension/perspective reference tables add significant bloat. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides detailed pseudocode and JSON schemas showing structure, but the code is not truly executable — it references undefined functions (identifyDimensions, generateFocusOptions, assessCoverage, formatIdeaMarkdown, readJson, appendToBrainstorm, Write) and uses template variables without clear resolution. The workflow steps are concrete in intent but rely on pseudocode patterns rather than copy-paste ready implementations. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step workflow is exceptionally well-sequenced with clear phase progression (Seed → Explore → Refine → Converge → Gate), explicit validation checkpoints (Initial Idea Coverage Check, Record-Before-Continue Rule, MANDATORY Terminal Gate), feedback loops in Phase 3 (iterative refinement with max rounds), and clear success criteria for each phase. Error handling and recovery steps are documented. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no bundle files to offload content to. Everything is inline in a single massive document — the detailed implementation code for all 4 phases, reference tables, templates, error handling, best practices, and collaboration patterns could all be split into separate referenced files. Internal anchor references exist (e.g., '#round-documentation-pattern') but all content lives in one file. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (1067 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
- Commit
5ff5e86
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.